USA > Vermont > Windsor County > Windsor > The birthplace of Vermont; a history of Windsor to 1781 > Part 28
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48
"We, the Subscribers, Being Members of the Committee of Safety for the County of Cumberland, think ourselves Bound in the Strongest Obligations to stand For the Pease & Good Order of this County Under the Directions of Honble the Con- tinental Congress & we Whose names are hereunto subscribed are of Opinion that the Major part of sd Committee act Re- pugnant to the resolves of the Honble Continental Congress; therefore, we Whose names are Hereunto Ennexed, Enter Our Disent from sd Committee of Safety, and our Protest against the further Proceedings of this Committee as Committee of Safety for the County.
"Westminster, 7th Novem". 1776.
John Chandler Wm Simons Leonard Spalding Joseph Hildreth George Earl Ebenezer Hoisington Sam1 Fletcher."
The striking point in the wording of the above protest is the reference to the "resolves of the Honble Continental Congress."
1 In writing of this episode Chairman Clay reported that eight of the delegates withdrew and that nine voted to expunge the letter. (2 N. Y. Coll. Hist. MSS. Revolutionary, 148.)
328
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
Here is disclosed an idea which had occurred to Ebenezer Hoisington when he was preparing his code of instructions to Cumberland's delegates and which Charles Phelps had in mind when he drafted his letter of June 21. The Continental Congress, on May 15, 1776, had passed a resolution recom- mending to the assemblies and conventions of the United Col- onies, "where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs has been hitherto established, to adopt such govern- ment as shall in the opinion of the Representatives of the people best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular and America in General."
The italicized words furnished to Ebenezer Hoisington and Charles Phelps an argument on which they could at least hang a hat. They considered the "exigencies" of the New Hampshire Grants-or, at least, those of Cumberland County -to be such that there was no "sufficient" government. They further considered it the duty of the settlers in establishing a "sufficient" government to form one which would truly "best conduce to the happiness and safety" of the inhabitants. Therefore Hoisington and Phelps had seen to it that Delegates Marsh, Sessions, and Stevens, and the entire New York Con- vention were apprised of the sort of government Cumberland County required. This point was not lost sight of by the New York Convention when Sessions and Stevens were quizzed as to whether they had been elected by the "people" or by a committee. The same point now actuated Ebenezer Hoising- ton and his six fellow dissenters. They considered a with- drawal of the Phelps letter tantamount to a disregard of the injunction of the Continental Congress that the State govern- ment to be formed should "conduce to the happiness and safety" of the inhabitants. This same argument was used the very next year by Thomas Young, of Philadelphia, in his let- ter to the people of the New Hampshire Grants, recommend- ing that they organize themselves into an independent State.
With such force did the action of the dissenters strike the majority of the Cumberland County Committee of Safety that overtures for peace came the next morning. A committee composed of three of the majority party and two of the mi-
329
THE REVOLT HANGS FIRE
nority, was chosen "To Diliberate on Withdrawing a Peise Sent to the Provincial Congress of Esq. Phelps Draft Touch- ing being Laid to Massachusetts Bay or some Other State & to frame something to send in its sted and make Report." One of the two members of the minority party on this com- mittee was Ebenezer Hoisington.
While the rest of the Committee of Safety was occupying itself with petty matters of private controversy, the sub-com- mittee of five worked on the problem that had been confided to them. Ebenezer Hoisington knew that the New Hampshire Grants Convention had reached the conclusion that the pres- ent was not an opportune moment for an open breach with New York. The other members of the sub-committee not having been members of the Convention may not have had that knowledge. He knew, also, that on the continued sup- port of New York depended the subsistence of the Rangers commanded by his nephew, Major Joab Hoisington. The case was plainly one that called for careful handling, and the result was a compromise in which, as we shall see, he did not yield over-much.
A transcript from the records of the Cumberland County Committee of Safety, setting forth the compromise recom- mended by Ebenezer Hoisington's sub-committee may be found in the second volume of the Journals of the New York Provincial Congress (1842 edition), at page 210. We give it herewith :
"At a meeting of the committee for the county of Cumber- land, the committee appointed by this body to take under consideration the expediency of the letter sent from this body to the Convention for the State of New York, touching being laid to some other state &c. &c., reported, that, whereas, the committee of the County of Cumberland having received a handbill from the Convention of the State of New York directing this committee to withdraw a letter sent to them from this body, bearing date 21st of June last. We, the com- mittee as aforesaid, having taken the same under considera- tion, report: That said letter ought to be withdrawn, and that we, notwithstanding, ought to Enjoy all the privileges that
330
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
any county in this State do enjoy, and that we hold it our right to present to the Hon. Provincial Congress of this State a petition and remonstrance, setting forth those grievances that are the cause of the uneasiness that subsists amongst us, for their wise consideration and redress; and if on proper de- liberation it may be thought proper, a separation should be most conducive to the peace and happiness of this county, we do not preclude ourselves the privilege of presenting our peti- tion to the Hon. the Continental Congress for their wise deter- mination. We still mean to pay all due deference to the State of New York, and to pay our proportion of the necessary charges of the State.
"Voted to accept the above report, and that a copy be sent to the Hon. Convention of New York, signed by the chairman and attested by the clerk.
"James Clay, Chairman of the Committee of Safety.
"A true copy of the minutes.
" Attest: Elkanah Day, Clerk.
"To the President of the Hon.
Provincial Congress at New York."
This compromise having been found acceptable to both par- ties within the Cumberland County Committee of Safety, the seven dissenters introduced a motion that their previous pro- test "be withdrawn & we to Join again as members." This closed the meeting, which then adjourned to the first Tuesday of the following June "& not Sooner Except on an Emergent Call," the long adjournment being probably urged by Ebe- nezer Hoisington and other secessionist members in the belief that by June the revolt from New York would be an accom- plished fact and that they would thus be relieved from the embarrassment of again appearing in an official capacity as citizens of that State.
At this juncture one reads with some impatience Mr. E. P. Walton's remark that "from this period the influence of the controversy with New York upon Cumberland County is visible." 1 He had been influenced by the writings of Williams,
11 Gov. & Coun., 360.
331
THE REVOLT HANGS FIRE
Allen, Governor Hiland Hall, and others into acquiescence with their assumption that only the settlers on the west side of the Green Mountains had been implicated in secession. Readers of these pages will appreciate that such an assumption is quite unwarranted. Beginning with Colonel Nathan Stone's rebel- lion, the disposition to revolt, although intermittent in its manifestations, had recurred often and to a dangerous degree in Cumberland County. Long before the ninth day of No- vember, 1776, which is the date fixed by Mr. Walton as the date of its appearance in Cumberland, it developed and had acquired strength.
By the end of the year the Convention of the State of New York had reached the conclusion that the New Hampshire Grants were determined to revolt. This is disclosed in a letter to General Washington approved by the convention on Janu- ary 1, 1777, containing the following passages: "On this occa- sion we beg leave to lay before your Excellency the true situa- tion of this State. It formerly consisted of fourteen counties, of which five and a part of the sixth are in possession of the enemy, and a considerable part of the counties of Gloucester, Cumberland and Charlotte appear determined to shake off their dependence upon us, so that above one-half is lost; of the remainder a considerable proportion is disaffected, and ready upon a favorable opportunity to join the enemy." 1
Towards the close of the year 1776, Windsor was one of the scenes of an inquiry into the activities of Major Joab Hoising- ton and his Rangers. Since several of the officers and men under Major Hoisington were Windsor men, and since the major himself was one of Windsor's first settlers, this inves- tigation must have aroused no little interest in the town. Springing, perhaps, from Major Hoisington's falling out with James Clay during the previous summer, and aggravated by the bills of expense that the major kept forwarding to the New York Convention, there had developed against the com- mander of the Rangers a spirit of criticism. Even if there had been no previous complaint or accusation against him, Major Hoisington's peculiar conduct in the month of September was
11 Journals Prov. Cong., N. Y. (1842 ed.), 753.
1
332
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
enough to arouse misgivings among even the most indulgent. We will let the major tell the story in his own language.
"Sr: I have Recievd posetive orders for Capt. Waits Com- paney to go with Colo Barret on Crownpoint Road from Gen1 Gates; owing intierly to a Rong Representation of boath the footing on which we are raised as well as our neglect of publick Servic and to Convince Him of his error I have sent him the resolves of the Congress and a letter Seting fourth our present Situations and Servises; Likewise Rote to him that if one of these Companeys of Rangers Raised and ordered to Reconoit the woods must go and Worke at Rhoads, that yourn must doe it. But my determanation was and still is that not one of them Ever shall. Therefore not with Standing my order for you to go on that Rhoad Sent by Capt. Wait these are to Dezier and order you not to go But prepare to march to this place as quick as posoble. These from yours to Serve.
"Nubarey Sept 19 1776 Joab Hoisington
"To Capt. Elcaney Day at Westminster." 1
The long and short of this astounding letter is that Major Hoisington, having received from General Horatio Gates, in command of his department, an order to march a company of Rangers to a certain place for duty there, calmly wrote the General declining to obey on the ground that General Gates was without authority to give such a command. The notion of equality prevalent among the New Englanders and which at first gave General Montgomery so much concern found a capital exponent in Joab Hoisington. There was nothing vicious about him: doubtless he fancied it his duty to advise General Gates that the Rangers were doing important service where they were, and, besides, that they were not enlisted for service on the Crown Point Road. On the latter head Mr. B. H. Hall asserts that Major Hoisington uttered a falsehood.2 But it is unnecessary to pursue that theme: without proving that, there is enough to show the preposterous character of Major Joab Hoisington as a commander. No wonder that his
12 N. Y. Hist. Mss. (Revolutionary), 143.
2 History of Eastern Vermont, p. 268, note.
333
THE REVOLT HANGS FIRE
own troops under such a leader exhibited insubordination when they received commands from their own officers.
The enquiry into Major Hoisington's conduct seems to have been handled mainly by John Sessions, who procured much of the documentary evidence. This may be found in the second volume of the Calendar of New York Historical Manuscripts pertaining to the Revolution, at pages 141 to 148, and also in the third volume of American Archives (fifth series), columns 940 to 948. Much of it deals with Clay's grievance and much with Major Hoisington's peculiar bar- gaining with the recruits as to their terms of enlistment. While not of sufficient historical importance to be reviewed here, it must have been highly interesting to the people of Windsor at the time, since some of the transactions occurred in Wind- sor and much of the testimony was taken there. The record shows, on the whole, a feeling not unfriendly to the major, who, after all the ado, seems to have escaped without court- martial or reprimand. Until his death he continued in com- mand of the Rangers, continued to present heavy requisitions for compensation, and was under frequent examination both as to the accuracy of his accounts and the value of his ser- vices. He died of smallpox near the camp at Newbury on February 28, 1777, generally lamented and with character vir- tually unsmirched.
CHAPTER XXXVI DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE
PURSUANT to the terms of its last adjournment, the so-called "general" convention of the inhabitants of the New Hamp- shire Grants assembled at Westminster on Wednesday, Janu- ary 15, 1777. The inclemency of the season, which made travel arduous and rendered camping well-nigh intolerable, would sufficiently account for the small attendance. Though the leaders hoped and expected that the session would result in something decisive and important, only nine delegates had crossed the Green Mountains from the west-side towns, and but thirteen delegates from the east-side towns appeared on the first day. The next morning two delegates from Pownal turned up, making the entire assemblage twenty-four men. This was the small body that actually declared the indepen- dence of the State. All told, they represented but eleven towns on the east side of the Green Mountains and only seven on the west. Two of the seven west-side towns, being then within the British lines, had suspended their activities as municipal units.
The chairman, Captain Joseph Bowker, of Rutland, was on hand at Westminster for the opening of the session. The sec- retary, Doctor Jonas Fay, of Bennington, was absent. In the room of the latter, Captain Ira Allen and Doctor Reuben Jones acted as clerk and assistant clerk, respectively. Nathan Clark had come over from Bennington, bringing with him his son, Nathan, junior, and Captain John Burnham. Colonel Thomas Chittenden, registering from his deserted Williston, had come from Arlington, Lieutenant Martin Powell from Manchester, Captain John Hall from Castleton, and Captain Heman Allen registered from Rutland. The two Pownal delegates were Major Joseph Williams and Lieutenant Nathaniel Seeley.
When one glances at the list of delegates from the east side of the Green Mountains, one discovers that from the south- east corner of the Grants, where the settlements were the old-
334
335
DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE
est and most populous, there were no representatives save Lieutenant Leonard Spalding, of Dummerston, and Captain Samuel Fletcher, of Townshend, and that there was not one delegate from the whole of Gloucester County. Of the nearby towns, Putney sent Lieutenant Dennis Lockland, Rockingham sent Doctor Reuben Jones, and Lieutenant Moses Wright and Chester sent Colonel Thomas Chandler. Westminster's own delegates were Nathaniel Robinson and Joshua Webb. Wind- sor, as usual, was represented by Ebenezer Hoisington. This handful of east-side delegates was augmented for the first time by some new delegates from several towns just to the north of Windsor. These accessions were Major Thomas Murdock and Jacob Burton, who were comparatively substantial citizens of Norwich, Benjamin Emmons, of Woodstock, who was a po- litical wire-puller of more than ordinary skill, and Stephen Tilden, of Hartford. The two last named had been colleagues of Ebenezer Hoisington, in the Cumberland County Commit- tee. The towns of Pomfret, Barnard, and Royalton are re- ported to have sent letters favoring the idea of a new State.
While, on the face of things, there had been a distinct gain in the spread of the New State idea to the towns north of Windsor, the enlistment of Hartford, Norwich, and Royalton was made subject to a condition not expressed on the record but asserted by them within the next few years in a manner so violent as almost to wreck the New State in its infancy. In short, the co-operation of the three towns last mentioned, and others still further north that participated in later conventions -particularly the towns of Fairlee, Newbury, and Barnet- was based on their expectation that the New State when finally created should extend its jurisdiction to such towns on the east side of the Connecticut River as might choose to secede from New Hampshire. This had been mentioned to Colonel William Marsh, Doctor Jonas Fay, and Heman Allen when they visited Cumberland and Gloucester Counties in August, 1776.1
Although Ira Allen made a showy gesture of dissent2 from the version we have recorded here, the weight of testimony is against him.3 Nor did he enter a categorical denial. The point 12 Gov. & Coun., 244-245. ? 5 Gov. & Coun., 543. ยช See 5 Gov. & Coun., 527.
336
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
came near to being pressed in November, 1776, by Colonel John Wheelock, son of President Eleazar Wheelock, of Dart- mouth College, on behalf of several New Hampshire towns. Whoever ere the parties interviewed by Colonel Wheelock, he was given to understand, as Ira Allen asserts, that since "they were not acquainted with the situation in New Hamp- shire, therefore they should do nothing about it." 1 Thus the matter was left in the air. With these parenthetical observa- tions we return to the small group of men assembled at West- minster.
Giving full credit to each of those twenty-four delegates for what he was and for what he had accomplished to date, but ignoring fame subsequently achieved, they were not impres- sive as representatives of the whole New Hampshire Grants. Captain Heman Allen, who had had the distinction of waiting on the Continental Congress, was perhaps the most important. None had distinguished himself as a Revolutionary officer: none, except Colonel Thomas Chandler, had been a figure of consequence in colonial government. Yet these twenty-four men did not balk at the step before them. They proceeded with directness, determination, and dispatch. First of all, after getting down to business on the morning of January 16, they chose three east-side delegates-Spalding, Hoisington, and Murdock-"to examine into the numbers that have voted for the district of the New Hampshire Grants to be a separate state from New York and how many are known to be against it." Instantly Ebenezer Hoisington, as chairman of that com- mittee of three, submitted the following amazing report:
"We find by examination that more than three-fourths of the people in Cumberland and Gloucester counties, that have acted, are for a new state; the rest we view as neuters.
By order of the convention, Ebenezer Hoisington, Chairman."
The records of the Congregational Church in Windsor show no public confession of untruthfulness made by Ebenezer Hoisington in connection with the submission of the report 1 1 Gov. & Coun., 427-428.
337
DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE
just quoted. He may have soothed his New England con- science by the interpolation of the words "by order of the convention" or by the doubtful meaning of the qualifying words "that have acted"; but nobody then in the convention or out of it could have believed that anywhere near a majority of the settlers in Cumberland and Gloucester Counties had declared in favor of a secession from New York and the set- ting up of an independent State government while the Colo- nies were engaged in war with Great Britain. Six months later, when many more converts to the New State idea had been recruited and a State Constitution had been adopted, Ira Allen had grave doubts of a majority being in favor of the programme.1 We must either whittle down Ebenezer Hoising- ton's report, so that it means practically nothing or else treat it as a mere trumpet blast of encouragement into which the question of truth or falsity enters not. Anyhow, it sounded well, and in the record it looked well. Such information as he had was doubtless based on the word or memoranda of Ira Allen, who asserted that he had spent sixty-seven days (from November 8, 1776, to January 14, 1777) in going through Cumberland and Gloucester Counties to get associations formed, petitions signed and collected, and to unite the people for a "full" convention.2
On the strength of Hoisington's report of east-side sentiment and on the assumption that the west-side towns were in ac- cord and needed not to be canvassed, the convention on Thurs- day afternoon, January 16, 1777, unanimously adopted its first Declaration of Independence in these words:
"Voted, N.C.D., That the district of land commonly called and known by the name of New-Hampshire-Grants, be a new and separate State; and, for the future, conduct themselves as such."
That single sentence contained the new State's original Dec- laration of Independence. Who framed it nobody knows. Twenty-four delegates, representing a maximum of seven
1 Allen's History of Vermont, p. 109.
2 Thompson's Vermont, part II, p. 107, note.
338
THE BIRTHPLACE OF VERMONT
west-side towns and fourteen Cumberland towns, voted for it. So great was Cumberland County's predominance in that small convention that Mr. E. P. Walton was moved to observe that "it may with truth be claimed that Cumberland County declared the independence of Vermont." 1
We call this the first Declaration of Independence because shortly thereafter came elaborations and revisions of elabora- tions to such an extent that one may not easily determine which of several is the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, immediately following the above unanimous vote, Nathan Clark, Ebenezer Hoisington, John Burnham, Jacob Burton, and Thomas Chittenden were appointed a committee "to prepare a draught for a declaration for a new and separate State." The delegates felt that something longer, more full of words and sound, and perhaps something of history and argument should constitute a declaration for general circula- tion. At the same time the convention chose Ira Allen, Thomas Chandler, Reuben Jones, Stephen Tilden, and Nathan Clark, junior, a committee on programme to prepare a plan for fur- ther proceedings. In the composition of these two committees it is worth noting that five east-side delegates and five west- side delegates were chosen, thus foreshadowing a policy with respect to balance of power which, for good or for evil, has characterized the management of State affairs in Vermont to the present day.
On Friday morning, January 17, both committees reported, and the reports of both received the unanimous endorsement of the convention.
In the amplified Declaration of Independence drafted by the committee of five, we find that Ebenezer Hoisington re- verted once more to the resolution of the Continental Con- gress of May 15, 1776, as justification. It is set out fully in the Declaration immediately following a sketchy assertion of New York's hostility toward the lives and properties of a part of the community and seems to be treated as the cornerstone of the right to declare for separate statehood. This Declara- tion, which may be found printed in full in volume one of Governor and Council, at pages 40 to 44, and in Slade's Ver-
18 Gov. & Coun., 391-392, note.
339
DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE
mont State Papers, at pages 69 to 70, is composed in a style superior to that of either of the versions which subsequently appeared in the newspapers or the abridgement which was contained in the petition to Congress. It gave at least one name to the proposed new State, viz., New Connecticut,1 but omitted to define its boundaries other than inferentially. It proposed, also, that the convention "at the next adjourned session" should establish a "bill of rights" and a "form of government." Who was mainly responsible for the actual drafting is unknown. Both Ebenezer Hoisington and Thomas Chittenden were too nearly illiterate to have put it into its readable shape. Ira Allen would have been sure to have men- tioned it as one of his works had he drawn it, and the style and substance are not like him.2
The convention next decided to publish a Declaration in the newspapers, but apparently thought that still further re- vision might be necessary, and for the latter purpose appointed Heman Allen, Thomas Chandler, and Nathan Clark a com- mittee.
The plan for further proceedings had included the incorpo- ration of the Declaration in a petition to Congress. This made necessary a committee and delegation to present the petition to Congress, and for this the convention chose Doctor Jonas Fay (who was absent), Colonel Thomas Chittenden, Doctor Reuben Jones, Colonel Jacob Bayley (who not only was ab- sent but had never given countenance to the New State move- ment), and Captain Heman Allen. It was a list that sounded respectable in the ears of strangers. Its composition was two doctors, two colonels, and a captain. The captain, at least,
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.